5 Questions...

In explaining the origin of all that energy, I could just as well ask your friend where the creator came from to create all that mark - matter/energy, & EXACTLY what mechanism was used? This is a circular argument & creationists can't have it both ways. Or perhaps a better way of putting it would be to ask why creationists allow themselves the hypocrisy of demanding to know what created all matter & energy, whilst never asking this question of their creator?God just is. God is above science and above scientific explanation for himself. This of course is a justifiable answer to a creationist. However, if you bind yourself completly by the laws of science and deny religion then how can you conceive of a definite beginning or even an indefinite beginning for that matter? By scientific law everything has to come from something.

If God is none of the above how can he interact with the universe?If God is one of the above then God is theoretically (read as with correct apparatus) observable and therefore a scientific study of God could be made.In other words the only things unobservable by science are those that have absolutely no interaction with the universe so either your "above science" God is a an impotent observer or he is observable counter to your claims OR God does not exist at all.....You are missing the point. The point is, God does not comply with the laws of science and man. Which is to be expected because God created science and is above science. Being that with science everything has a beginning and an end it is scientifically impossible for science to explain a definite beginning. Because I can always ask "what was before that?"

"1)If Allah/God/Yahweh/Ahura Mazda/Odin/Mithras etc (from now on referred to as the big fella) were to interact in any way with the universe especially in a way that is a violation of physical laws it would be observable. "Not necessarily, God could make it so it was observed, or he could decide not to and cover it up. But it is likely that it would be misinterpreted or misunderstood by man. His power is limitless.What's the highest number?

I ask again. What was before the big bang? If lightning created life in the earth's oceans then how did the lightning get there? If life is just a continuous loop and continually regenerates itself then how did the loop get here? You can always go farther back until you reach the beginning, but how can science have a beginning? The only way is through super natural forces.

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-11-2001]

"God interacts with the universe in a way which affects it in any way, i.e obliterating cities, turning people into pillars of salt,it IS observable..."I believe God could
"turn people into pillars of salt" but often enough he chooses to accomplish his handy work in other manners, as does his adversary. I believe that all actions taken by an individual are inspired by the direct spiritual hand of good or evil. But by no means is God limited only to use things which would reveal his presence. He either merely chooses not to yet, or we are just to blind to see."Oh and the highest number is whatever anyone else can think of raised to its own power.....plus 1 (pointless as there is always a higher no. as the set of real no.s is a limitless set extended each time by plus 1) "Expecting to understand God is like knowing what the highest number is.

"It's interesting that your question is specifically aimed at scientists - "What was before the Big Bang?" But phrase it another way - "What was before the creation of the universe?" - "My friend, this is exactly my point. The answer is God always existed. God is a being who is infinitely past our understand and logic, so of course his existence is as well. You can claim whatever you want to have started life, but you always have to conceive of what was before that. There has to be something that just existed without anything else before it. And that is God."To say "BEFORE" the beginning of time is like saying "NORTH of the north pole.""The north pole ends, just as the beginning of time ends (or shall I say begins.)

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-11-2001]

"And I say this is an argument from ignorance "I dont know so it must have been God".That's an argument that has been applied to every gap in scientific knowledge at one time or another, problem is some smart fellow always comes along eventually shines a metaphorical flashlight into the hole and says "No God here, I think it works like this Though."So you presume to tell me that because science can not answer it now, that they will one day?Science can not disprove the existence of God in any context. Maybe thousands of years ago a volcano erupted and killed thousands of people and maybe it was blamed on God killing them. Nowadays scientist say that volcanos' erupt due to some natural force. But that doesn't mean God doesn't use that natural force to make the volcano erupt and to kill those people. All science discovers is the force that God uses to perform with.

And if something has any effect on the universe it (through its effects) is observable. It doesn't matter what the mechanism of the interaction is, it (and therefore whatever is causing the interaction) CAN be observed.Even if everything science has observed in the universe can be contributed by a pure scientific factor that doesn't mean God didn't do it. Just because we can't look in space and see an old man with a white rob push a meteor around the earth doesn't mean he didn't push the meteor around the earth. I think it's arrogant for anyone to assume we know and understand everything about the universe with our 5 senses we have been given.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by redstang281:
The answer is God always existed. God is a being who is infinitely past our understand and logic, so of course his existence is as well. You can claim whatever you want to have started life, but you always have to conceive of what was before that. There has to be something that just existed without anything else before it. And that is God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------seems to me I could make the same claim for a pre big bang singularity....apart from the "beyond our understanding and logic" part.....Ah, my friend but science can not work like that. Science can not abide by the excuse that it just is. That will never be justifiable by any scientific law now, or anyone to ever be invented, created, or discovered. The only law of something just existing is God's law for himself. For if you could believe that science could just exist, than how can you not believe in God?

"You still say "you always have to conceive of what was before that" and "There has to be something that just existed without anything else before it."But look, you're still using that word "before." My point was that whether one is Christian or atheist, the term is meaningless when applied to the creation of time. Similarly you use the word "always" - another term which can only have meaning in time.The Scottish Liturgy uses the formulation "He is the Word existing beyond Time, both source and final purpose." This preserves the infinite nature of God which, by use of time-scoped words you were inadvertently mitigating."Of course time can be defined just as the numerical system with no beginning and no end, but how did time get here? Don't limit yourself to 2nd dimensional thought.

You are missing the point:1)If something interacts with the universe it is observable2)If it is observable it can be studied experimentally.Ergo a "big fellow" who interacts with the universe in any way is not as you claimed "above science"...I understand what you're saying. You are saying that you think God doesn't exist because all of science's observations of the universe indicate scientific explanations. I am offering up two answers to that. 1) Man has not observed everything he thinks he has. 2) What man has observed has been inline with science because God did his manipulation in a scientific way. So therefor is unnoticed by man.

secondly (and I hope you dont misinterpret this as a personal attack) I suggest that you are confused between science and pre big bang singularity (which I suggested was an equally viable candidate for the "it always existed coz it did" club.I don't take this as a personal attach. I understand you are more than likely frustrated with me. I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God. Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science. God is the only thing can just exist. I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there. If you deny everything I am claiming you really have to ask yourself why you deny it. Do you deny it because you think it's wrong, or because you just don't want to accept it. Because he who creates the world has the right to create the rules. Human nature doesn't like to follow rules.

"Actually I am saying that if the your God (or any of the other big fellows) exist and interacts with the universe it would be observable so any hypothetical big fellow is Not above science..."The mere fact of creation is above science (which from your POV is debatable.) The fact that the observations scientist have made have not let them to something they can not explain with science only means that they either are missing something or so far God has chosen not to present himself to them and just uses his forces in ways they label scientific. In any event it in no way limits God to potentionally express himself in an unscientific way. So therefor he is above science."I actually take the position that a lack of evidence means that one should avoid subscribing to any opinion until some data is available....
Also you seem to think that I am postulating current science as a complete explanation. I am well aware of the expansion of the boundaries of what is observable."It sounds to me like you have something we Christians refer to as "faith." However yours is directed to science and something coming from absolutely nothing."And once again you miss the point that if God interacts with the universe and has any effect then a complete enough set of measurements will show a result that could not be attributed to the starting conditions of the system....And that this interaction is necessarily observable..... "I believe God has a hand in everything from the littlest to the smallest detail in everything. So I believe that God has a hand in everything regarding the universe. The hand of course could be one that corresponds to scientist reasoning or could be one that doesn't. I believe that sometimes it doesn't and in that event scientist make guesses on pure conjecture.

And once again my answer is that it is wrong to take a situation where there is no data and attribute any explanation to it.....So we can end this on the note that as far as this topic is concerned Christians will always have an answer, but thus far evolution does not.

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-11-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Really I would have said that the reluctance to take a position without data was indicative of a LACK of faith, please explain how it is otherwise?

---

Your complete devotion to thinking that there is a reason for life besides God is your faith in man.